Last Chance to Fight Hypocritical and Deceptive HHS Rule

With the excitement of a historical presidential race and the economy seemingly crashing down around us, no one could be blamed for losing track of a complicated and confusing regulation that the Health & Human Services Department has proposed. However, tomorrow is the last day to submit comments on a rule that claims to protect health care providers and entities from "discrimination" but would end up denying patients critical services and information.

The idea behind the rule is that providers who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization are in need of protection from those who might force them to provide such services against their will. The thing is, federal law already protects them from such circumstances.

The HHS rule would go much, much farther.

First, it would extend beyond doctors and nurses to just about anyone involved in the health care system -- ambulance drivers, claims processors, janitors, even candy stripers. Second, it could apply to much more than abortion and sterilization. Patients could be denied the most popular forms of contraception, screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections or HIV/AIDS, fertility treatments, end-of-life care, and anything else to which someone might possibly object. Third, the objection could be for any moral reason or notion of conscience. There is no requirement to show that a sincerely-held religious belief would be violated, which is the standard test for religious accommodation in the workplace.

But I want to focus on the part of the rule that would allow medical professionals not only to opt out of performing objectionable procedures but would let them refuse to provide information and counseling as well.

Keep in mind, most of the rule's supporters -- like the Family Research Council, the Christian Medical Association, and Concerned Women for America -- also strongly support "informed consent," at least if it concerns information on fetal development and theories about fetal pain. That's why you see the same groups lined up in favor of bills that would make women seeking abortions first view a sonogram, be offered anesthesia for the fetus, and listen to state-mandated scripts telling them an abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Yet if a woman sought unbiased, nondirective counseling about her options to continue or terminate a pregnancy, an objecting physician would not have to provide any information under this rule. And if a rape victim wanted emergency contraception, an objecting pharmacist would not have to refer her to a pharmacy that would give it to her. How exactly is a woman supposed to be able to make informed decisions and act on them when medical professionals can withhold information from her at will?

And where is the concern for the conscience of the nurse who is required to provide his patients with state materials that he thinks are biased and inaccurate? And what of the doctor who cannot perform the safest procedure for her patient because the federal government has banned it?

Apparently only one set of morals is entitled to protection in HHS' view.

Rather than protecting people from discrimination, the HHS regulation would elevate one moral code to a special status that trumps all others. With one final gift to the radical right, the Bush administration has offered a rule that threatens both the diversity of beliefs in our pluralistic society and the health and well-being of patients seeking care.

Time is running out but there's still a chance to act. You can submit comments on the regulation here or by emailing your comments to [e-mail] by 11:59 pm EDT Thursday, September 25th.

Jessica Arons is the director of the Women's Health & Rights Program and a member of the Faith & Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Comments

[christygirl]

I can't believe that so far I haven't seen one person say -- exactly whose conscience are we talking about here? You know it's all about the far right Christians. If you went to a drugstore in this country where Arab or Pakistanis were the owners, and they didn't believe in what you had a prescription for, this whole "conscience clause" and its accompanying load of crap would be gone faster than an E in a Dan Quayle potato.

[CarlaAxtman]

The language of this proposed regulation is so broad that it allows a right of refusal for health care employees for any procedure an employee opposes. The regulation"s sweeping refusal clause includes all DOH, HSD, subcontractors, grantees and all entities that carry out a health service program/research activity funded even in part by HHS. This allows these individuals to refuse participation in any part of a program if doing so "would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."

This language raises particular concerns about honoring end-of-life decisions by patients and their surrogate decision-makers. It also raises questions about how this clause will be interpreted in relation to existing law in many states.

This is particularly worrisome for patients at the end of life who are often unaware of their options. Some are hesitant to initiate conversations with their providers about certain of those options. Compassion & Choices has filed an official comment opposing this proposed regulation, and encourages members to do the same.

We encourage you to let the Bush Administration know you are opposed to the proposals.Here is some sample language to get you started:

http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/issues/alert/?alertid=11958441&type=ML

Carla Axtman, Online Community Builder, Compassion and Choices

[bannorhill]

Thank you for a different side of the issue I had not thought of. You made me stop and ponder for awhile.

The other side is the medical professional who went into their career to save and preserve life. They took and oath to do that. After years of faithful service they they may face a situation that violates their oath.

As a patient my wife & I faced this. She had a Cyst removed and we wanted to have her tubes tied at the same time. Our local hospital was a catholic run facility and would not allow the procedure to be performed. Instead we went to another hospital. Without this HHS rule the catholic hospital may have been forced to do a procedure they opposed.

Oregon passed a law allowing assisted suicide for some patients. Should EVERY medical professional in the state be REQUIRED to assist in a patent's suicide?

As Americans we should have the freedom to say no if we morally oppose something. This rule gives health care providers that option.

[bannorhill]

With medical operation the patient is informed about the procedures and the risks. They are commonly shown x-rays and other test results. This policy requires similar information for terminating a pregnancy.While there are moral ideas behind the requirement there are also sound medical reasons for these regulations.

[lisalisa71]

Why is this not on the front page of Huffpost? Why am I the first to comment on this in the seven hours it's been posted?